Blake Edwards Didn't Want George Peppard to get the male lead in Breakfast at Tiffany's - Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) Discussion

[–] letess (1541) 8 months ago

McQueen was the first choice for many things. He turned them down (like Dirty Harry, French Connection, Butch Cassidy, First Blood, Apocalypse Now, Sorcerer (Friedkin’s biggest regret was not agreeing to McQueen to bring Ali to the location with producer criedit)). With Breakfast at Tiffany’s he was unable to because of his TV contract. But the other thing was Truman Capote, who wrote Breakfast of Tiffany’s, wrote it with Marilyn Monroe in mind and was felt betrayed by Paramount when then cast Hepburn. So, Monroe and McQueen, a completely different movie.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

McQueen was the first choice for many things. He turned them down (like Dirty Harry, French Connection, Butch Cassidy, First Blood, Apocalypse Now, Sorcerer (Friedkin’s biggest regret was not agreeing to McQueen to bring Ali to the location with producer criedit)).

---

Yes to all of those. McQueen was in some ways "the biggest movie star who turned down the most projects." This became particularly acute after he completed "The Towering Inferno" in 1974 and kept turning down movies so much that he was barely THERE for the second half of the 70's...which only made him more in demand.

Irony abounded. He made ONE more movie in the 70's after The Towering Inferno: the little-seen art film versiion of Ibsen's "Enemy of the People" with his famous face buried under long hair , eyeglasses, and a huge beard. It barely got any release at all.

More irony. McQueen came back in 1980 -- "ready for the 80's" -- with two films in one year: "Tom Horn"(a Western from the man who made The Magnificent Seven and Nevada Smith) and "The Hunter"(a modern action film from the man who made Bullitt and The Getaway.) Neither film was terribly good, nor much of a hit. And suddenly -- in the same year, 1980, Stefve McQueen died young at 50.

The whole thing felt like wasted years after The Towering Inferno.

--

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

With Breakfast at Tiffany’s he was unable to because of his TV contract.

---

Yes, I think that Breakfast at Tiffany's and Capra's Pocketful of Miracles are more about "young McQueen faiing to get the role because of his contract" whereas the 70's turn-down were about "established superstar McQueen turning down projects." Capra offered McQueen Pocketful of Miracles (in a pleasant "gangster with a heart of gold" role) after Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin turned it down. Capra lost McQueen because the studio didn't think he was a big enough star -- Capra ended up with Glenn Ford ("A garden variety star," groused Capra in his autibio) and didn't like him.

---

But the other thing was Truman Capote, who wrote Breakfast of Tiffany’s, wrote it with Marilyn Monroe in mind and was felt betrayed by Paramount when then cast Hepburn. So, Monroe and McQueen, a completely different movie.

---

Monroe and McQueen. Add them to the list not only of ONE star not being in a movie, but TWO stars not being in a movie as sought.

A lesser known example: Hitchcock made Torn Curtain(1966) with two very big stars: Paul Newman and Julie Andrews. But he WANTED two lesser stars : Anthony Perkins(to make up for his Psycho villain) and Eva Marie Saint(his fave from North by Northwest.) The studio "forced" (ha!) Newman and Andrews on Hitch. I think he was scared to work with them. The movie made a little money but not enough.

reply

[–] letess (1541) 8 months ago

If McQueen hadn’t turned down those films - we wouldn’t have Eastwood as Dirty Harry, Stallone as Rambo, Redford in Sundance and that empire, Hackman as Popeye Doyle. BUT The Sorcerer really might have been something. In Tiffany’s - the original novella is completely different from the film adaptation. Axelrod’s script changes the character in the book that Peppard played. In the book “Fred” character was gay. I didn’t like Peppard in this. I always thought he was stiff and pompous, but I actually don’t think McQueen cast as a “writer” would be that good. He just had so much magnetism and he was irresistible in anything. Other contenders were Robert Wagner and Jack Lemmon. McQueen really wanted to go against type and fought for Thomas Crown. Norman Jewison had the screenwriter completely rewrite the script so there were fewer words to say. In this case, Sean Connery turned down this role and regretted it. McQueen died in 1980 at 50 so he didn’t make the 80s. When he was married to Neile McQueen, she chose a lot of his movies. He followed her suggestions for those great earlier movies. Their marriage fell apart when he did The Getaway and met Ali. That entire second marriage is when some of these other movies came up. He didn’t do Dirty Harry because he played a cop in Bullitt. Sundance - his never ending rivalry with Newman. Yet, both are in Towering Inferno. Finally. I think he chose Enemy of the People to try a classical actor’s work - maybe it was to show Ali, who was educated and privileged, and McQueen came up from a truly dysfunctional family. He said if he wasn’t in the home for juvenile delinquents which redirected his life that he would be a bum.

Hitchcock might not have wanted John Gavin for Psycho but I think he tried to get him for Topaz. Actually I don’t think he thought much of Gavin or Kim Novak for that matter as far as acting.

reply

[–] DoctorThirteen (14090) 8 months ago

That's interesting. I didn't know about that, but Peppard has never sat right with me in this movie. He always seemed an odd choice. Thanks for posting that.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

You are welcome.

As I post above, George Peppard is fine for me in BAT. I can't take that back now. But it seems he was a fairly "new and minor star" when he was paired with Hepburn. The balance is rather off -- it is HER movie.

Compare as the 60s went on: Hepburn worked with some major male co-stars as Cary Grant(Charade), William Holden(Hepburn's ex-boyfriend) in Paris when It Sizzles, Rex Harrison(My Fair Lady -- and he won the Best Actor Oscar for it), Peter O'Toole(How to Steal a Million) and Albert Finney(Two for the Road.) All established male stars -- even Finney(Tom Jones.)

Perhaps the BAT role itself wasn't appetizing for established male stars: gigolo, prostitute(to one older woman client.)

To the good, Peppard was at least a young "age peer' to Hepburn. So often she had been paired with much older men: Humphrey Bogart, Fred Astaire, Gary Cooper, Cary Grant, William Holden, Rex Harrison. At least Peppard gave Hepburn a "young romance."

One more in the sixties: he was hardly her romantic lead, but young new star Alan Arkin's terrifying but creepily funny turn VS Hepburn in Wait Until Dark was probably the most memorable pairing of Hepburn with a male star in the entire decade. Its sweet, blind Audrey versus sadistic psycho Arkin at the climax and they are truly magnificent togeterh.

reply

[–] DoctorThirteen (14090) 8 months ago

'One more in the sixties: he was hardly her romantic lead, but young new star Alan Arkin's terrifying but creepily funny turn VS Hepburn in Wait Until Dark was probably the most memorable pairing of Hepburn with a male star in the entire decade. Its sweet, blind Audrey versus sadistic psycho Arkin at the climax and they are truly magnificent togeterh.'

It's been too long since I last saw that movie.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

'One more in the sixties: he was hardly her romantic lead, but young new star Alan Arkin's terrifying but creepily funny turn VS Hepburn in Wait Until Dark was probably the most memorable pairing of Hepburn with a male star in the entire decade. Its sweet, blind Audrey versus sadistic psycho Arkin at the climax and they are truly magnificent togeterh.'

It's been too long since I last saw that movie.

---

Did you like it? I surely did. A movie with very little blood but a full-house night of screaming(at least during the final 20 minutes) when I saw it.

It still plays great. With music by Henry "Moon River" Mancini -- muich scarier than that in Breakfast at Tiffany's(though Mancini used SOME of his "scary" music for the cat being thrown into the rain and disappeaaring.)

Actually, over the end credits "Wait Until Dark" has a song just like Breakfast at Tiffany's does -- its called "Wait Until Dark" and sung to a bossa nova beat by a female singer as a LOVE song ("...but darling...just wait until dark...")

Good song. Not a radio hit.

reply

[–] DoctorThirteen (14090) 8 months ago

I did like it. It was the first time I'd seen Alan Arkin (Roat, I believe was the character) and he really made an impression on me. Not too long afterwards I saw him with James Caan in Freebie and the Bean and was amazed at how different he was. He's still one of my favourite actors (loved him as the dad in Edward Scissorhands).

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

Alan Arkin -- so sadly and recently passed -- really made an impact in his first decade on screen. An Oscar nom for playing a "comedy Russian" in The Russians Are Coming, The Russians are Coming"(1966) -- his first major film, I believe. Then scaring the bejesus out of everybody a year later in Wait Until Dark(while maintaining a sick comedy stand up style for much of it.) Then on to a Cuban in Papi and a deaf mute in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter and...yes, on to the "unsung comedy classic" Freebie and the Bean in 1974. (I believe this was Warners biggest hit that year, though eventually Blazing Saddles overtook it.

Arkin had ups and downs over the ensuing decades, but came back strong in the 21st Century -- won an Oscar for Little Miss Sunshine. (The young girl was nominated and I recall Alan Arkin on the red carpet saying "I hope she doesn't win -- I'm NOT KIDDING! It would be very harmful for her at this age.")

Still, when day is done, Arkin will always be Harry Roat from Scarsdale to me. Around 1981, Stephen King named Arkin as Roat "the most terrifying movie villain of all time." For generating screams...maybe.

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

Actually, over the end credits "Wait Until Dark" has a song just like Breakfast at Tiffany's does -- its called "Wait Until Dark" and sung to a bossa nova beat by a female singer as a LOVE song ("...but darling...just wait until dark...")

Good song. Not a radio hit.
--
Not a radio hit, but it did receive at least one additional cover from Scott Walker in 1968. I like it a bit better than the Sue Raney version from the film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyKbqnqO8hA

I feel like so many 60s movies had titular vocal themes to go with them, like it was an unwritten rule or something-- In the Heat of the Night, The Americanization of Emily, Charade, etc.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

Actually, over the end credits "Wait Until Dark" has a song just like Breakfast at Tiffany's does -- its called "Wait Until Dark" and sung to a bossa nova beat by a female singer as a LOVE song ("...but darling...just wait until dark...")

Good song. Not a radio hit.
--
Not a radio hit, but it did receive at least one additional cover from Scott Walker in 1968. I like it a bit better than the Sue Raney version from the film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyKbqnqO8hA

--

I did not know about that one! Nor did I know that Sue Rainey sang the original. (I thought it sounded like the lead singer for Sergio Mendes and Brasil 66.)

---

I feel like so many 60s movies had titular vocal themes to go with them, like it was an unwritten rule or something-- In the Heat of the Night, The Americanization of Emily, Charade, etc.

---

Yes. I mentioned in another thread(I think) how all those songs "merged" the movies, records, and the radio in ways that don't really repeat much today(there was, however, an "MTV" video period where Ghostbusters and Back to the Future got THEIR songs.)

These 60s songs -- often with Henry Mancini on the music side -- were sophisticated and moving and exciting and yet, perhaps a bit "middle aged" -- but I loved them as PART of the backdrop of my life. I DID like my parents music because the movies made it mine too.

However, even as "their stuff" played on the car radio and the living room record player, soon I had my OWN radio and my OWN record player and -- I joined my generation. The Beatles. The Stones. The Monkees(sure, pros wrote their songs and they were funny actors.) and on to The Doors and Canned Heat and Cream. And Led Zepplin.

That was a pretty hard intro to rock but came the 70's I guess I reverted to form...James Taylor and Carole King and Linda Ronstadt and Beach Party Animal Jimmy Buffett were more mellow and like movie stars to me.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

"Movie songs" stayed on the radio in the 70's: The Way We Were, The Sting(ragtime instrumental), The Exorcist(SCARY instrumental)..The Goodbye Girl. And all those Saturday Night Fever hits.

And then MTV...

CONT

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

Perhaps the BAT role itself wasn't appetizing for established male stars: gigolo, prostitute(to one older woman client.)
--
Yeah, I imagine so. That makes it even harder for me to imagine McQueen in the part. I can't see him going for that kind of role.
--
To the good, Peppard was at least a young "age peer' to Hepburn. So often she had been paired with much older men: Humphrey Bogart, Fred Astaire, Gary Cooper, Cary Grant, William Holden, Rex Harrison. At least Peppard gave Hepburn a "young romance."
--
Such an icky trend that was. Cary Grant in Charade at least had a silver fox sense of virility (plus Hepburn's character is firmly in her 30s and on the prowl for action), but Astaire in Funny Face and Gary Cooper in Love in the Afternoon looked every inch their ages and it's much harder to buy a young woman being interested in either of them.
--
One more in the sixties: he was hardly her romantic lead, but young new star Alan Arkin's terrifying but creepily funny turn VS Hepburn in Wait Until Dark was probably the most memorable pairing of Hepburn with a male star in the entire decade. Its sweet, blind Audrey versus sadistic psycho Arkin at the climax and they are truly magnificent togeterh.
--
No lie, Arkin is my favorite of her "leading men"-- if by leading man, we mean "highest billed male actor in the film." Their scenes together are great.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

Perhaps the BAT role itself wasn't appetizing for established male stars: gigolo, prostitute(to one older woman client.)
--
Yeah, I imagine so. That makes it even harder for me to imagine McQueen in the part. I can't see him going for that kind of role.
--
Your opinion is matched by others on this thread. I suppose what is interesting is that he was PITCHED for it, and also by Capra for "Pocketful of Miracles." Filmmakers saw McQueen's coming stardom for what it was. One reads that about a lot of male stars. Casting directors KNEW that McQueen...and Robert Redford...and Bruce Willis...and Kevin Costner...and Brad Pitt..WERE stars waiting to arrive. They just had to do some time to get there.

CONT

To the good, Peppard was at least a young "age peer' to Hepburn. So often she had been paired with much older men: Humphrey Bogart, Fred Astaire, Gary Cooper, Cary Grant, William Holden, Rex Harrison. At least Peppard gave Hepburn a "young romance."
--
Such an icky trend that was. Cary Grant in Charade at least had a silver fox sense of virility (plus Hepburn's character is firmly in her 30s and on the prowl for action), but Astaire in Funny Face and Gary Cooper in Love in the Afternoon looked every inch their ages and it's much harder to buy a young woman being interested in either of them.
--
One more in the sixties: he was hardly her romantic lead, but young new star Alan Arkin's terrifying but creepily funny turn VS Hepburn in Wait Until Dark was probably the most memorable pairing of Hepburn with a male star in the entire decade. Its sweet, blind Audrey versus sadistic psycho Arkin at the climax and they are truly magnificent togeterh.
--
No lie, Arkin is my favorite of her "leading men"-- if by leading man, we mean "highest billed male actor in the film." Their scenes together are great.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

To the good, Peppard was at least a young "age peer' to Hepburn. So often she had been paired with much older men: Humphrey Bogart, Fred Astaire, Gary Cooper, Cary Grant, William Holden, Rex Harrison. At least Peppard gave Hepburn a "young romance."
--
Such an icky trend that was. Cary Grant in Charade at least had a silver fox sense of virility (plus Hepburn's character is firmly in her 30s and on the prowl for action),

--

Yes to both of those "age things" about Grant and Hepburn in Charade. He seems younger than his real age, but she seems OLDER than her real age...and they meet in between.

One of the reasons Grant retired from movies was that he felt uncomfortable about how young his female co-stars were. Director Howard Hawks told him: "But Cary, every time I see you out..its with younger and younger women." Cary replied "that's fine for my real life, but not for me on film." Hah.

And yet some friend told Grant after they saw Charade: "Audrey Hepburn is too old for you in that movie. It should have been (20-something) Jane Fonda." Hah again.

---

but Astaire in Funny Face and Gary Cooper in Love in the Afternoon looked every inch their ages and it's much harder to buy a young woman being interested in either of them.

---
Yep. And its weird: Cooper was more virile than Astaire, but he is wrinkled and in CONTINUAL shadow or fuzzy-lens in Love in the Afternoon. The reason proved sad: he would die of cancer a few years later. Still, just too much of a father figure.

A "reality" reason for all those old male stars with young women is that under the Hollywood star system of the time, "young men" rarely qualified as "major stars" until they reached middle age. They were "ingenues" -- Robert Wagner and Fabian and James Darren, etc. And older women were a no no with older stars.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

However: I was watching the 1959 drama "On the Beach" the other day and I took note of the "age appropriate" casting: Gregory Peck was given a mature and slightly puffy Ava Gardner as his love interest, but her body was in great shape and they made a "proper mature couple." In the same film, young heartthrob Anthony Perkins(just two films away from Psycho and the End of All That) was properly matched with a truly gorgeous young actress named Donna Anderson. All the lovers fit together.

CONT

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

Peppard definitely seems an underwhelming choice. I don't have an issue with the performance exactly, but it's easy to see how the other elements of the film overtake it. When anyone remembers BAT, he's never at the forefront, even though he's technically the protagonist.

Really, it's tough being opposite Hepburn, who had such star quality. However, she had a lot of memorable male co-stars who could hold their own. A lowkey type like Peppard or an outright wet blanket like Mel Ferrer would be blasted off the screen beside her-- weird in the case of Ferrer, considering he was her husband, but the two times they shared the screen she stole every inch of the screen from him.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

Peppard definitely seems an underwhelming choice. I don't have an issue with the performance exactly, but it's easy to see how the other elements of the film overtake it. When anyone remembers BAT, he's never at the forefront, even though he's technically the protagonist.

---

Yep. In fact, there's amusing competition for "sexy man" in that movie: Martin Balsam -- with only two scenes in the movie -- plays a powerful, fast-talking, on-the-make Hollywood agent who (a) intimidates Peppard on first meeting; (b) gets HIS OWN hot doll to make out with(he's an agent, he can do things for her) and (c) comes in at the clutch to "rescue" Hepburn from incarceration given his Hollywood/lawyer/political connections. Balsam was still rather handsome then, too -- even bald. I'm not kidding -- Balsam is rather more suave, worldly and virile than Peppard in the lead. But Balsam never could have been Hepburn's romantic lead!

---

Really, it's tough being opposite Hepburn, who had such star quality.

--

One she missed out on: Laurence Harvey was cast by Alfred Hitchcock to play a suave London thief opposite Hepburn in a movie called "No Bail for the Judge." Hepburn backed out of the film and Hitchcock took "new star" Harvey and directed him in an episode of the Hitchcock TV series instead! (How helpful that was to Harvey's stardom, I doubt it.)

--
CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

However, she had a lot of memorable male co-stars who could hold their own.

--

Oh, sure. Peck (who demanded that newbie Hepburn get billing with him over the title on Roman Holiday.) Grant. Harrison(in his own way.) Peter O'Toole. Albert Finney...and again, Alan Arkin VS Hepburn. (I found a few Arkin interviews on Youtube in which he says -- over and over and over -- that he HATED playing Roat, and was miserable every day bringing harm to the wonderful Audrey Hepburn, and apologized to her all the time and even wrote her a letter of apology two decades later. I think he protesteth too much. Its his most famous role and he helped Hepburn get her final Oscar nom.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

A lowkey type like Peppard or an outright wet blanket like Mel Ferrer would be blasted off the screen beside her-- weird in the case of Ferrer, considering he was her husband, but the two times they shared the screen she stole every inch of the screen from him.

---

Yes...Mel Ferrer was a good looking guy but...stardom didn't "take."

I recall him ending up on a fairly popular nighttime soap(I watched it on significant other orders) in the 80's called "Falcon Crest" as a rich family's lawyer. He was slightly villainous and a little bit funny. It was a good swan song for him.

As a kid, I remember being very confused between MEL Ferrer and JOSE Ferrer. Which was amusing because they looked nothing alike. Just the names confused me.

That Mel Ferrer didn't want Tony Curtis playing opposite his wife is understandable I suppose. Even in his marriage to the gorgeous Janet Leigh, Curtis had a rep as a "ladies man."

Which makes it understandable that Ferrer DID approve Anthony Perkins as Hepburn's co-lead in Green Mansions in 1959.....

PS. Of all the names listed versus Peppard, Curtis strikes me as having the "star power" but not the naivete for the role and, well, maybe Jack Lemmon COULD have imported his "Apartment" innocence with a dose of sexual adventurism. At least Curtis and Lemmon WERE stars at the time.

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

I recall him ending up on a fairly popular nighttime soap(I watched it on significant other orders) in the 80's called "Falcon Crest" as a rich family's lawyer. He was slightly villainous and a little bit funny. It was a good swan song for him.
--
He was better in more villainous parts in general. He was the bad guy in SCARAMOUCHE and he fit the bill there as an arrogant aristocrat. And while not a villain, he was appropriate for the gruff puppeteer in LILI.
--
That Mel Ferrer didn't want Tony Curtis playing opposite his wife is understandable I suppose. Even in his marriage to the gorgeous Janet Leigh, Curtis had a rep as a "ladies man."
--
Absolutely.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

I recall him ending up on a fairly popular nighttime soap(I watched it on significant other orders) in the 80's called "Falcon Crest" as a rich family's lawyer. He was slightly villainous and a little bit funny. It was a good swan song for him.
--
He was better in more villainous parts in general. He was the bad guy in SCARAMOUCHE and he fit the bill there as an arrogant aristocrat.

---

You know, Scaramouche DID enter my mind when starting to discuss Ferrer and I discarded the thought but -- man, does that have a GREAT swordfight at the end(Stewart Granger vs. bad guy Ferrer)...in a live theater with a full audience -- from stage to seats to balconies to staircase to lobby. Janet Leigh's in it, too.

--

And while not a villain, he was appropriate for the gruff puppeteer in LILI.

--

Yes, I remember that too and I realize that Hepburn probably married the guy when he still had a shot at stardom approxmating her level --- but it didn't work out that way.

Mel Ferrer is on the DVD documentary of Wait Until Dark. He got a producer hat on that and talks of the movie as if it were "his baby." I think Hepburn almost simultaneously quit movies AND Ferrer after Wait Until Dark. (Yes, she came back 9 years later to movies, but only once in a truly good one: Robin and Marian.)
--
That Mel Ferrer didn't want Tony Curtis playing opposite his wife is understandable I suppose. Even in his marriage to the gorgeous Janet Leigh, Curtis had a rep as a "ladies man."
--
Absolutely. I've read his autobiographies and its almost childish how much he wanted, wanted, WANTED Janet Leigh and then, upon marrying her....moved on to all sorts of affairs(quickies mainly) post haste. Then divorce from Leigh and all sorts of failed marriages. But Curtis wanted what he wanted and as he said "I never missed a child support payment." On many children.

CONT

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

You know, Scaramouche DID enter my mind when starting to discuss Ferrer and I discarded the thought but -- man, does that have a GREAT swordfight at the end(Stewart Granger vs. bad guy Ferrer)...in a live theater with a full audience -- from stage to seats to balconies to staircase to lobby. Janet Leigh's in it, too.
--
That swordfight is so awesome. A truly stunning bit of choreography back before CG took all the fun out of action scenes.

Another cool villainous role for Ferrer: the blind schemer who helps poison Alec Guinness' Marcus Aurelius in THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. He was chilling in his few scenes-- a real rat.
--
Yes, I remember that too and I realize that Hepburn probably married the guy when he still had a shot at stardom approxmating her level --- but it didn't work out that way.
--
I think she saw him as sophisticated and intelligent. He was very involved in the theater and such. Also, she really wanted children-- part of why she and Bill Holden didn't work out was because he was infertile.

Hepburn eclipsing Ferrer as a star had to get under his skin I imagine. He was more likely to be seen as "Mr. Hepburn" than she was as "Mrs. Ferrer."
--
Mel Ferrer is on the DVD documentary of Wait Until Dark. He got a producer hat on that and talks of the movie as if it were "his baby."
--
In a sense, it was his baby. He was given the script of the play before it opened on Broadway and then he immediately saw potential in it as a dramatic vehicle for Hepburn. He also claimed it was his idea to cast Alan Arkin as the villain. THAT was certainly a creative, not obvious choice, given Arkin was famous for comic work onstage and onscreen, even that early in his career. And from what I've read, he was usually the one fighting with Jack Warner anytime Warner disagreed with something on set, be it the tea breaks, Terence Young as the director, Hepburn not wearing Givenchy, etc.

CONTD.

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

I recall reading a memoir or book of some sort by a guy who worked with Ferrer on a TV Disney film in the 1980s. He said Ferrer actually screened WUD for him at one of the screening rooms at the Disney studio and that he was very enthusiastic about it as they watched, commenting on many of the creative decisions made. He essentially got a live commentary experience. So Ferrer was indeed very proud of the film... even if it was made at the lowest point of his marriage to Hepburn.
--
I think Hepburn almost simultaneously quit movies AND Ferrer after Wait Until Dark.
--
Their marriage was going downhill by that point. The two were having affairs with other people (Hepburn had just had a fling with Albert Finney-- and there were also rumors Mel Ferrer was involved with Samantha Jones, who played Lisa in WAIT UNTIL DARK). Hepburn wanted to be with her son while Ferrer wanted them to be a Hollywood powerhouse couple. WUD is often seen as a last ditch attempt to salvage the union (if that was the case, then I would certainly hope he wasn't seeing Jones romantically)-- and indeed, Hepburn got pregnant shortly after production wrapped-- but by September, the pregnancy ended in miscarriage and the two announced their separation.
--
(Yes, she came back 9 years later to movies, but only once in a truly good one: Robin and Marian.)
--
I still think THEY ALL LAUGHED is lowkey enjoyable. Not a classic, but it has good moments in it and Hepburn gives a good performance, even if it's more of an ensemble movie than a star vehicle.

The less said about BLOODLINE, the better.

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

(I found a few Arkin interviews on Youtube in which he says -- over and over and over -- that he HATED playing Roat, and was miserable every day bringing harm to the wonderful Audrey Hepburn, and apologized to her all the time and even wrote her a letter of apology two decades later. I think he protesteth too much. Its his most famous role and he helped Hepburn get her final Oscar nom.
--
It's hilarious how much he complained about having to play a villain. Didn't know about him writing a letter apologizing. like, I'm sure she knew he wasn't actually trying to set her on fire or stab her lol. It's a movie, bro.

To be fair though, Arkin seems to have made some peace with the part late in life. When interviewed in 2015 (in honor of his being featured on TCM's Summer Under the Stars), he said: “I feel good about the work I did in it, in retrospect, but I had a difficult time doing it. I was so enamored of Audrey, and so in awe of her, I hated being – or even pretending to be – cruel to her.... One of the things that has excited me about it is to find out that Stephen King is a big fan of what I did with the character. He feels that’s one of his favorite heavies, so I’m gratified by that. I’m glad I didn’t do a lot of other heavies, though. It’s not an arena I’m particularly fond of doing.”

So he chilled out eventually. Tbh, Arkin could get very-- intense in interviews lol. Having read quite a bit, I think he protested too much on quite a few things. Like check out this interview he did in 1968 for The Heart is a Lonely Hunter-- at points it sounds like he and the interviewer are going to freaking fight:

https://archive.org/details/ClaireClouzotInterviewsAlanArkin1968

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

It's hilarious how much (Arkin) complained about having to play a villain. Didn't know about him writing a letter apologizing. like, I'm sure she knew he wasn't actually trying to set her on fire or stab her lol. It's a movie, bro.

---

Ha. I found so many Alan Arkin interviews over time where he pretty much had to confront the fact that Roat was going to be his legacy role. When you think about it, its not too far removed from how Anthony Perkins suddenly BECAME "Scary psycho Norman Bates" after he made Psycho, but Arkin seems to have come along at a time where you could play a psycho and move on to other roles without being typecast. Or perhaps Wait Until Dark wasn't the blockbuster that Psycho was...(though I know it was a big hit. I saw it with full houses in BOTH 1968 and re-release in 1970.)

I always been tickled that Norman Bates and Roat appear together -- and share at least one scene together -- in Catch-22 of 1970. Alan Arkin in the lead(as Rossarian), Perkins in one of the "supporting star parts" (as Chaplain Tappman) -- they were ALL treated like stars on that movie.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

To be fair though, Arkin seems to have made some peace with the part late in life.

---

...as Anthony Perkins did with Norman Bates...somewhere around the time he agreed to make Psycho II in 1982. I guess he hated Norman mainly in the 70s.

---

When interviewed in 2015 (in honor of his being featured on TCM's Summer Under the Stars), he said: “I feel good about the work I did in it,

---

Always nice to know when an actor KNOWS he was loved in a role. Even a baddie like Roat.

---

in retrospect, but I had a difficult time doing it. I was so enamored of Audrey, and so in awe of her, I hated being – or even pretending to be – cruel to her....

---

Yeah, well..as long as he didn't REALLY harm or terrify her.

There is an "opposite story" to this one. Robert Mitchum in Cape Fear playing the sexual psychopath Max Cady. Near the end, he advances on "nice wife and mother Polly Bergan" with sexual intent, wrestles her around, manhandles her -- rubs broken egg yolk all over her exposed chest(no breasts visible; 1962) and growls at her. According to Polly Bergen, Mitchum REALLY DID get out of control in that scene, DID NOT change his personality on "CUT"...really scared her and evidently hurt her a bit physically.

Mr. Arkin was a MUCH nicer actor playing a psychopath than Mitchum evidently. (And that's one reason why Robert DeNiro's rather comical Cady of the 1991 remake isn't as scary.)

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

(Said Arkin): One of the things that has excited me about it is to find out that Stephen King is a big fan of what I did with the character. He feels that’s one of his favorite heavies, so I’m gratified by that.

---

Arkin was being too modest. King wrote -- in his 1981 study of horror in movies, print and TV, "Danse Macabre" "Alan Arkin as Harry Roat Jr from Scarsdale is the greatest and most terrifying villain in movie history." Or something like that. How great to read of Arkin learning of King's praise.

For Arkin to say "He feels that's one of his favorite heavies," again he's being too modest. King didn't say ONE of the great heavies He said THE great heavy. I'm pretty close to agreeing. Perkins AS Norman Bates(in the original Psycho at least) was never shown killing anybody, Mother did it. Anthony Hopkins Best Actor turn in Silence of the Lambs turns out to be in only half the movie. Creatures like Jason and Michael Meyers are more faceless machine than man. No, Arkin was the Total Package as Roat: funny, nuts, cruel, sadistic, cool. In several interviews, Arkin says the key to Roat(an enforcer for the drug trade) is that he's on drugs -- MANY drugs -- all the time. An interesting take on a villain.

--
"I’m glad I didn’t do a lot of other heavies, though. It’s not an arena I’m particularly fond of doing.”

--

I pretty much can't remember Alan Arkin AS a heavy in anything else. I will note that while he was a "good guy cop" in the hard comedy Freebie and the Bean(1974), he and James Caan did beat up suspects and baddies brutally.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

So he chilled out eventually. Tbh, Arkin could get very-- intense in interviews lol. Having read quite a bit, I think he protested too much on quite a few things. Like check out this interview he did in 1968 for The Heart is a Lonely Hunter-- at points it sounds like he and the interviewer are going to freaking fight:

https://archive.org/details/ClaireClouzotInterviewsAlanArkin1968

--

That's a heckuva an interview. So refreshingly more honest and combative than a lot of the "pap" that passes for movie star interviews today. (A star sitting in front of a movie poster saying everybody and everything is great.) Charle Rose got a LITTLE of this kind of argumentative with some guests. I remember this exchange with QT on "Inglorious Basterds" (based, in title only, on a B movie called "Inglorious Bastards"):

Tarantino: What's great, you know, is that Inglorious Basterds came entirely out of MY head. Its my imagination.
Charlie Rose: But what about the FIRST "Inglorious Bastards."
Tarantino: (A bit angry.) Oh, come on, I just took the title!

Still...a funny "gotcha."

Meanwhile, back there in that 1968 interview.

First of all, it IS 1968 and Arkin remarks how the Hays Code has just died. He says "I think we are about to see a new era in American films." "You are there."

He also hilariously disses pretty much all foreign filmmakers EXCEPT Fellini and says of the rest: "Its all so pretentious. I've never SEEN so much pretension."

The poor young female interviewer then stumbles into this:

Arkin: I've never SEEN so much pretension. (Starting another thought): But we're going to see things in American film..
Woman: Pretension?
Arkin: NO!

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

An irony: I will concur that there was a lot of pretension(from what I've seen) in foreign film of the 60's, but America was about to IMPORT a LOT of that pretension to American movies because young American directors IDOLIZED European films. But "pretension" is obviously a loaded word for argument. One man's pretension is another man's (or woman's) "artistic depth." Still, Altman could be pretentious(in Images and Three Women.) Rafelson could be pretentious. (In Five Easy Pieces.) Coppola could be a LITTLE pretentious(in a great movie, The Conversation.)

Arkin and the woman certainly argue a lot(which through today's eyes seems a bit bullying of the loud man against the rather cute sounding young woman), but she makes the mistake of offering her personal viewpoints and somehow just bugging the heck out of Arkin. Examples:(both about The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, where he played a deaf man.)

Woman: You chose to underplay the deaf man...
Arkin: Underplay? What do you mean? Do you mean my acting was poor? (or something like that.)

Later

Woman: So the deaf man commits suicide over the woman...
Arkin: (ANGRILY) NO! He did NOT commit suicide over the woman! That's not why he did it.

(Hey I saw that movie and I thought that was PART of it...)

Interesting: the woman is named Claire Clouzot. I wonder if she was related to Henri Clouzot of Diabolique/Wages of Fear fame? Or maybe Clouzot is a common name in France.

I found this poignant: Arkin says he will start work on Catch-22 "in January" (1969.) I always find these old interviews poignant because WE , listening TODAY, are hearing an actor talklng about "something in the future that is now very much in the past." Catch-22 has been made, and released, and over 50 years have passed. Shoot, when he gave this interview, Arkin had no idea that he would be making "Freebie and the Bean" in four years.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

YouTube has lots of "guest appearances" by stars on talk shows in the 70s, 80s, and beyond. I recall recently watching Tom Hanks, on YouTube in 1986 on Letterman, talking about his new movie "The Money Pit"(a comedy with Shelley Long.) I started thinking: "This Hanks guy doesn't know he's going to get an Oscar nomination for Big in 1988 that will make him a major star, but then hit a patch of flops, but then get a role in League of Their Own which will save him with a hit, and THEN win back-to-back Best Actor Oscars for Philadelphia and Forrest Gump."

Its very unsettling, looking at the very young "goofball romantic comedian Tom Hanks" with his young untroubled face, talking about The Money Pit, and just THINKING about all the career changes ahead for him.

A little bit the same with the 1968 Alan Arkin interview - but what an honest, cantankerous, slightly neurotic interview that was.

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

Interesting: the woman is named Claire Clouzot. I wonder if she was related to Henri Clouzot of Diabolique/Wages of Fear fame? Or maybe Clouzot is a common name in France.
--
Just did a google search. She's Clouzot's granddaughter and she was a filmmaker in her own right.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

Interesting: the woman is named Claire Clouzot. I wonder if she was related to Henri Clouzot of Diabolique/Wages of Fear fame? Or maybe Clouzot is a common name in France.
--
Just did a google search. She's Clouzot's granddaughter and she was a filmmaker in her own right

--

Thanks for the research. Jeez...Arkin gave a hard time to a woman from "cinema royalty"? Such balls!

Reversibly:

Alfred Hitchcock's interviews over his decades are collected in various volumes. I read one where some French guys were interviewing him just after seeing his new film North by Northwest and we reach this point:

Interviewer: I thought during the Mount Rushmore climax, the colors were wrong and garish for night.
Hitchcock: Well...well...that happens in the lab. I have no control over that.

Modernly, interviewers bend over backwards NOT to insult their interviewees, and when one of two of them just SLIGHTLY criticized Tarantino , he exploded at them, telling one: "Listen, you need to understand something, OK? You're NOT here to really interview me. You are here to HELP ME SELL MY FILM!"

Hitchcock wasn't that thin-skinned with HIS interviewers.

Though I guess Alan Arkin was.

CONT

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

In several interviews, Arkin says the key to Roat(an enforcer for the drug trade) is that he's on drugs -- MANY drugs -- all the time. An interesting take on a villain.
--
And the characterization was allegedly based on actual addicts he'd met in Chicago in the early 60s.
--
I pretty much can't remember Alan Arkin AS a heavy in anything else. I will note that while he was a "good guy cop" in the hard comedy Freebie and the Bean(1974), he and James Caan did beat up suspects and baddies brutally.
--
Yeah, he literally never played anyone that evil ever again. Some characters were certainly rougher than others-- though even as the Bean, he has a softer side evidenced by his deep affection for Freebie-- but no one was ever quite THAT evil again.
--
That's a heckuva an interview. So refreshingly more honest and combative than a lot of the "pap" that passes for movie star interviews today.
--
Isn't it? It's insane how lacking in filter Arkin is. He openly disses WOMAN TIMES SEVEN, a movie he shot only two years ago! I will say, I absolutely agreed with his assessment of Godard as "boring," though I like those "pretentious" European movies generally.
--
Arkin and the woman certainly argue a lot(which through today's eyes seems a bit bullying of the loud man against the rather cute sounding young woman), but she makes the mistake of offering her personal viewpoints and somehow just bugging the heck out of Arkin
--
He was super argumentative for no reason. She does snap back at him eventually. She retorts at one point, "How stupid of me" and he backtracks-- "*chuckles nervously* You're not stupid." She also tells him she doesn't "share your optimism" about American cinema getting beyond road show spectaculars.
CONTD

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

I don't know what crawled up his ass before that interview. In an on-set interview made during production of WUD, he sounds a bit nervous but remains mostly cordial to the interviewer. However, there are other interviews from the period where he puts on this "grr I don't like publicity, it's beneath me" air. So who knows? He could certainly be a very neurotic guy, a quality that becomes apparent if you read his 1979 New Agey memoir HALFWAY THROUGH THE DOOR: AN ACTOR'S JOURNEY TO THE SELF. That was... something.
--
Woman: So the deaf man commits suicide over the woman...
Arkin: (ANGRILY) NO! He did NOT commit suicide over the woman! That's not why he did it.

(Hey I saw that movie and I thought that was PART of it...)
--
God, he's so defensive. You know, he also mentions casually when the interviewer asks him about WAIT UNTIL DARK that the critics "didn't get" what he was doing in the movie. And following WUD, he got bad notices for INSPECTOR CLOUSEAU. Maybe he was just super defensive after that one-two blow from the critics? (Interestingly, he also says he had "fun" playing Roat, which is a total 180 from the endless wailing and gnashing of teeth when asked about the part years later.)

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

I found this poignant: Arkin says he will start work on Catch-22 "in January" (1969.) I always find these old interviews poignant because WE , listening TODAY, are hearing an actor talklng about "something in the future that is now very much in the past." Catch-22 has been made, and released, and over 50 years have passed. Shoot, when he gave this interview, Arkin had no idea that he would be making "Freebie and the Bean" in four years.
--
I always feel that way too. It makes you realize that time never stops.

It's also a bit eerie because CATCH-22 was not a pleasant filming experience for Arkin-- or anyone on that production really.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

In several interviews, Arkin says the key to Roat(an enforcer for the drug trade) is that he's on drugs -- MANY drugs -- all the time. An interesting take on a villain.
--
And the characterization was allegedly based on actual addicts he'd met in Chicago in the early 60s.
--
I find this entire "drug addict" angle on Arkin's part about about his characterization of Roat...very interesting.

For I took Roat as a mix of "a hired Mafia enforcer" and a straight up sadistic psychopath. How drugs can MODIFY that personality(given what little I know about how drugs affect behavior as something one can SEE) makes Roat...that much more dangerous. I mean, this guy heads into a job assignment that requires killing people(Lisa, at the beginning) and acting out several parts, and planning his counter movies against his partners...and he's ON DRUGS?

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

I pretty much can't remember Alan Arkin AS a heavy in anything else. I will note that while he was a "good guy cop" in the hard comedy Freebie and the Bean(1974), he and James Caan did beat up suspects and baddies brutally.
--
Yeah, he literally never played anyone that evil ever again.

--

I suppose for some actors, "once is enough" on playing villains -- particularly after playing such a GREAT villain(on the page, alongside Hepburn) in Wait Until Dark.

After Psycho, Anthony Perkins was evidently offered a lot of psycho villains and turned them all down. (One was played by Roddy McDowall in Shock Treatment - the movie opens with McDowall choppilng off an old woman's head -- below frame -- with big gardening clippers.)

Perkins was SORT of nutty in Pretty Poison(1968) but Tuesday Weld was the psyhco in that one.

Perkins managed to play rather normal characters in Goodbye Again, Phaedra, Play It as It Lays, Lovin' Molly...he almost had a regular guy career going again until he finally agreed to "go back to Norman" in Psycho II.

But Arkin was back to sympathetic guys almost immediately after Roat.

--

Some characters were certainly rougher than others-- though even as the Bean, he has a softer side evidenced by his deep affection for Freebie--

--

I really like Freebie and the Bean. As I've posted elsewhere it is in my Top Ten as "Greatest Movie Nights In a Theater" -- with guys(who could handle the humorous brutality) and a full house laughing all the way.

--

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

but no one was ever quite THAT evil again

--

Roat again...well, Stephen King said that Roat was the most terrifying.

Its a personality thing. Killers like Michael Myers and Jason HAVE no personality.

In "Hitchcock world," I'd say his cheery, friendly....sadistic, raping, cruel strangling psycho Bob Rusk in Frenzy was about as hateful as Roat, and well-acted to boot. But -- unlike Roat -- Rusk just wasn't FUN to watch in his evil. He was just sickening. And not played by a star. (It was Michael Caine knockoff Barry Foster.)

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

That's a heckuva an interview. So refreshingly more honest and combative than a lot of the "pap" that passes for movie star interviews today.
--
Isn't it? It's insane how lacking in filter Arkin is. He openly disses WOMAN TIMES SEVEN, a movie he shot only two years ago!

---

Yes..you're supposed to stay quiet on those things. Though when Hitchcock knew his 1972 movie Frenzy was a hit, he was comfortable enough to note to an interviewer that "I didn't care for" the movie right before it: Topaz(1969.)

--

I will say, I absolutely agreed with his assessment of Godard as "boring," though I like those "pretentious" European movies generally.
--

I always have to bow out on detailed discussions of "foreign films"(I'm an American ) beyond the fact that I READ about Godard and Bergman and the rest, so at least I knew who they were. But my take on myself is I don't have the "genetic disposition" to properly enjoy or respond to art films from any country. Still...more power to those of you who DO!

And I guess Alan Arkin was NOT one.

--

He was super argumentative for no reason. She does snap back at him eventually. She retorts at one point, "How stupid of me" and he backtracks-- "*chuckles nervously* You're not stupid."

--

Hmmm.like a REAL conversation, yes? I trust all of us have found ourselves oversteppling our bounds, having to apologize and take things back, take things down a notch. Etc.

--

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

She also tells him she doesn't "share your optimism" about American cinema getting beyond road show spectaculars
--

Who could tell WHAT was coming? In 1968 and 1969, movies WERE divided among "roadshow spectaculars"(whether musical or historical) AND low budget fare.

My guess is that NONE of them saw what was REALLY coming: the Sci Fi and horror movies of the 1950s(The Thing, The Blob, IT The Terror Beyond Space, Godzilla, Wawr of the Worlds, When Worlds Collide) suddenly becoming the A-list blockbusters of the 70's and beyond...leading to the comic book movies of today.

I'd say the comic book movies are "a culmination" of all that but...there are decades yet ahead into infinity. Who knows what will come next?

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

I don't know what crawled up his ass before that interview.

--

Ha.

--

In an on-set interview made during production of WUD, he sounds a bit nervous but remains mostly cordial to the interviewer.

--

Well, that was only his second movie, Audrey Hepburn was the star of the show...likely he was trying to behave.

---

However, there are other interviews from the period where he puts on this "grr I don't like publicity, it's beneath me" air.

--

Brando famously inspired a lot of actors on how to act. Perhaps he inspired them on how to do interviews too -- with angry reluctance. Two Brando quotes I liked about his hating of interviews:

Brando: I don't talk acting "down." I just talk against people who talk acting "up."

Brando: If they had paid me to sweep the studio floors what they paid me to act...I would have swept the studio floors.

--

So who knows? (Arkin) could certainly be a very neurotic guy, a quality that becomes apparent if you read his 1979 New Agey memoir HALFWAY THROUGH THE DOOR: AN ACTOR'S JOURNEY TO THE SELF. That was... something.

--

I've read my share of actor AUTO-biographies (as opposed to others biographies of them.) The ones by Tony Curtis and Burt Reynolds revealed very neurotic, somewhat petty men(each man really insulted a few co-stars) -- with a dash of kindness and charm in each case. Brando's was less petty. I recall the casual cruelty with which he disguised his having had sex with a friend's wife. Trying to console that friend(who knew she was cheating but not with WHOM), Brando wrote: "I put on my Hertz-rent-a-face and consoled him." Hah!)

I would expect that the Arkin AUTO-bio adds elements of New Age/Deep Think? Movie stars be fun and/or inspiring to watch...but you might not enjoy talking to one.
--
CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

God, he's so defensive. You know, he also mentions casually when the interviewer asks him about WAIT UNTIL DARK that the critics "didn't get" what he was doing in the movie. And following WUD, he got bad notices for INSPECTOR CLOUSEAU. Maybe he was just super defensive after that one-two blow from the critics? ---

---

Well I saw Inspector Clouseau on release (1968) and ...Arkin wasn't so much as miscast as the role was simply PETER SELLERS and Alan Arkin -- an entirely different "product" just didn't FIT. BTW, you can find Hitchcock's psycho Bob Rusk from Frenzy(Barry Foster) in that movie...with no impact at all.(And he has shorter hair than "Mod" Rusk would).

---

(Interestingly, he also says he had "fun" playing Roat, which is a total 180 from the endless wailing and gnashing of teeth when asked about the part years later.)

--

Well, over time I think Arkin simply "got it" -- he was the bad guy you love to hate.

CONT

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

For I took Roat as a mix of "a hired Mafia enforcer" and a straight up sadistic psychopath. How drugs can MODIFY that personality(given what little I know about how drugs affect behavior as something one can SEE) makes Roat...that much more dangerous. I mean, this guy heads into a job assignment that requires killing people(Lisa, at the beginning) and acting out several parts, and planning his counter movies against his partners...and he's ON DRUGS?
--
There are only two scenes that deal with the whole "he's a druggie" angle. In the first apartment scene, Roat pulls out a small box and takes out a small white pill from it, then puts in on his tongue while talking. The other time is a bit more subtle-- in the scene where the guys are playing cards in the van, Roat's leaned back and seems a bit spaced out. But that's about it. Otherwise, he seems very in control of himself, the opposite of an addict.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

There are only two scenes that deal with the whole "he's a druggie" angle. In the first apartment scene, Roat pulls out a small box and takes out a small white pill from it, then puts in on his tongue while talking. The other time is a bit more subtle-- in the scene where the guys are playing cards in the van, Roat's leaned back and seems a bit spaced out. But that's about it. Otherwise, he seems very in control of himself, the opposite of an addict.

--

I have only the vaguest memories of both those "clue" scenes. I will have to seek them out.

I do remember him seeming "weirded out" in that van...we get the classic moment(seen in other films with other psychos), where Crenna puts a friendly hand on Arkin's shoulder and Arkin snaps into fury: "Don't TOUCH me!"

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

...as Anthony Perkins did with Norman Bates...somewhere around the time he agreed to make Psycho II in 1982. I guess he hated Norman mainly in the 70s.
--
That often seems to be how it goes. Mark Hamill had a similar attitude trajectory about Luke Skywalker. In recent years, he's been very successful as a voice actor and character actor. A-list stardom just didn't work out for him.
--
Yeah, well..as long as he didn't REALLY harm or terrify her.
--
And it doesn’t seem like he did, which is why I don’t get the excessive guilt. I’ve never heard any stories of him being inappropriate as in that Mitchum anecdote you mentioned. There is a story Richard Crenna tells in the Warren Harris Audrey Hepburn biography about Arkin constantly screwing up takes during the scene where Roat shoves burning newspaper in Susy’s face—he screwed up the lines or the action, and kept insisting something about the scene wasn’t working for him. Hepburn was reportedly patient, but Crenna said “I would have jumped up and down on Alan’s head.” But that’s not abusive behavior, that’s an actor being off his groove. That has to be common.

In interviews about his performance style, Arkin says back then, he used to try to completely inhabit his characters, to the point where he felt emotionally exhausted and “hungover” when the workday ended. He also claims acting involves some degree of dredging up parts of yourself—and maybe the parts he dredged up for Roat were parts of him he didn’t like. I don’t know. At any rate, if he had been an ass to Hepburn on set (as was George Peppard in BAT), I think we more than likely would have heard about it. From all reports, there was a lot of joking on that set, just to keep everyone from getting too gloomy.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

Yeah, well..as long as he didn't REALLY harm or terrify her.
--
And it doesn’t seem like he did, which is why I don’t get the excessive guilt. I’ve never heard any stories of him being inappropriate as in that Mitchum anecdote you mentioned.

---

I've read the Mitchum story a few times - it sounds like he got DANGEROUSLY out of control attacking Polly Bergen, which is unconsiconable. Methinks the "laid back" Mitchum(with his youth on chain gangs ant the like) had some demons. He got fired from "Blood Alley" for throwing a studio guy off a boat ramp(producer John Wayne replaced him) and he got fired from "Rosebud" by Otto Preminger for misbehavior(Peter O'Toole replaced him.)

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

---There is a story Richard Crenna tells in the Warren Harris Audrey Hepburn biography about Arkin constantly screwing up takes during the scene where Roat shoves burning newspaper in Susy’s face—he screwed up the lines or the action, and kept insisting something about the scene wasn’t working for him. Hepburn was reportedly patient, but Crenna said “I would have jumped up and down on Alan’s head.” But that’s not abusive behavior, that’s an actor being off his groove. That has to be common.

---

Yes evidently sometimes they just can't get it right.

Interesting Hitchocck stories:

On Notorious, he put up with Ingrid Bergman blowing a line over an entire morning of takes. When she got it right, he said "GOOD morning, Ingrid."

On Psycho, Janet Leigh kept blowing her real estate office line "Not inordinately" over and over again and Hitch patiently waited for her to get it right.

On Vertigo, some MINOR player(yet unnamed) kept blowing his lines as the shrink telling Barbara Bel Geddes about James Stewart -- and Hitchcock fired him on the spot and replaced him with the banker from The Beverly Hillbillies.)

So: star -- you get forgiven for blowing lines. Bit player: you get FIRED for blowing lines.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

---There is a story Richard Crenna tells in the Warren Harris Audrey Hepburn biography about Arkin constantly screwing up takes

--

A brief sojourn on : Richard Crenna.

Richard Crenna is as much a part of the "nostalgia package" of Wait Until Dark, I think, as Alan Arkin and Audrey Hepburn. Crenna got to be over the title WITH Hepburn(first) and Arkin.

His character is carefully drawn: a handsome criminal...handsome in an "everyday way" (like Richard Crenna) and deceptive: he IS dangerous, he CAN employ violence(though we doubt he is a killer) he WILL help terrorize Hepburn(its his paid job) and...he DOES come to her side eventually and come to respect her. Which gets him one of the great murders in movie history.

I can remember being in the theter now:

Crenna in the doorway to Hepburn: "And Suzy, I just want you to know --"

And he stops. And his eyes glaze, and he gulps...and he DIES, falling with Roat's knife in his back and Roat right behind.

The audience reaction:
Huh?
What?
Wait!
Oh no!
SCREAMING.

---

As I recall, Richard Crenna got to be "over the title" in major movies only twice, back to back:

The Sand Pebbles(1966) with Steve McQueen.
Wait Until Dark(1967) with Audrey Hepburn.

I'll guess that Crenna was hired because he was affordable next to those two high-priced stars.

Crenna worked his way up from TV:

Adenoidal nerd teenager with funny voice(Our Miss Brooks.)
Handsome farmer, husband, and father (The Real McCoys.)
"Prestige actor" (Slattery's People, about a State Legislator. Ha.)

And finally:

Movie star. But not for long -- The Sand Pebbles, Wait Until Dark, a few lesser movies, then a lot of Made for TV movies.

Crenna "came back" in the 80's playing the crooked murder victim husband(a nasty guy) in "Body Heat"(1981) and worked until retirement and death.

But for Crenna, too, I think HIS legacy role is in Wait Until Dark.

CONT

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

Ha. I found so many Alan Arkin interviews over time where he pretty much had to confront the fact that Roat was going to be his legacy role.
--
Well, Roat is certainly one such for Arkin. Younger audiences tend to remember him as the cokehead grandpa in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE and some might argue Yossarian was Arkin's signature part. The thing is, the guy was so versatile that he could convincingly play so many different roles and leave a great impression.
--
When you think about it, its not too far removed from how Anthony Perkins suddenly BECAME "Scary psycho Norman Bates" after he made Psycho, but Arkin seems to have come along at a time where you could play a psycho and move on to other roles without being typecast. Or perhaps Wait Until Dark wasn't the blockbuster that Psycho was...(though I know it was a big hit. I saw it with full houses in BOTH 1968 and re-release in 1970.)
--
I think Arkin got let off the hook easier because 1) the critics hated his performance at the time (I assume audiences didn't have the same problem though) and 2) WUD was indeed a hit and influential in its own way, but not groundbreaking the way PSYCHO was. Like, my grandmother (she's 79 now) still talks of PSYCHO being so disturbing and insane when it came out. That a mainstream, A-picture could be like THAT! WUD is less transgressive in terms of violence or sex, or even in terms of cinematic style-- though obviously it didn't need to reinvent anything to be effective or entertaining.

I think Arkin also benefited from being billed as a character guy (one bit of publicity for WUD compared him to Alec Guinness playing multiple roles in KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS) and before the late 70s, he was much harder to define in terms of "type." I think Perkins' undermining his wholesome boy next door image with the Norman Bates role had such a big impact on audiences that they could never look at him with that complete "trust" again.
--

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

Ha. I found so many Alan Arkin interviews over time where he pretty much had to confront the fact that Roat was going to be his legacy role.
--
Well, Roat is certainly one such for Arkin. Younger audiences tend to remember him as the cokehead grandpa in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE and some might argue Yossarian was Arkin's signature part.

---

"Cokehead grandpa" won Arkin a long-awaited Oscar(Supporting..which didnt quite feel right; he was a STAR) and in today's modern society, I guess that's what he's remembered for, if at all.

The whole "legacy" thing -- with movie stars -- seems to be disappearing. I know among young people I know, not only do they have no idea who Paul Newman or Steve McQueen(the actor) were...they don't know who Eddie Murphy was. Fame just...disappears..nowadays.

And that includes..Roat. I think one reason that Norman Bates lives on, BTW is that unlike Wait Until Dark, Psycho still gets shown a lot in both high school and college classrooms. It lives on like a Dickens novel "as assigned."

---

some might argue Yossarian was Arkin's signature part.

--

Some might. At the time, it was a MAJOR part to land -- Catch-22 had been THE novel to adapt since its publication in 1961 and "casting Yossarian" was a big deal. (Over time, Jack Lemmon had been considered, and then Paul Newman, and then Dustin Hoffman -- but Mike Nichols -- hot off of Virginia Woolf and The Graduate -- chose Arkin.)

I always loved this magazine article summary of watching Mike Nichols talk to Arkin after a scene where plane flew close to him on the ground:

Nichols: That was good fear, Alan.
Arkin: That was REAL fear, Mike.

--

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

The thing is, the guy was so versatile that he could convincingly play so many different roles and leave a great impression.
--

Oh, sure. He played a KINDLY grandpa part in "The Rocketeer" -- a little favorite of mine from 1991, strongly because of him.

He's there in the room with the other heavyweights of Glengarry Glen Ross -- Pacino, Lemmon, Baldwin, Harris, Spacey -- in Glengarry Glen Ross and he's pretty much the only nice guy in the story. But not THAT nice...they are all crooks.

And there are roles that Arkin dropped out of -- the Carl Reiner part in Ocean's Eleven, the judge played by Morgan Freeman(!) in Bonfire of the Vanities.

Right at the end, Arkin was deliciously paired with Michael Douglas as two old, cool Hollywood guys in "The Kaminsky Method." The series opens with the death of Arkin's wife from cancer and about a season in, he got a passionate sexual relationship with..Jane Seymour. Viva sexual old guys! Arkin left the series after two seasons...it only lasted one more. Arkin was too important to it. Turns out he was ill and going to die.

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

The whole "legacy" thing -- with movie stars -- seems to be disappearing. I know among young people I know, not only do they have no idea who Paul Newman or Steve McQueen(the actor) were...they don't know who Eddie Murphy was. Fame just...disappears..nowadays.
--
I do have to wonder though, how lasting was fame ever? Like in the 1960s and 1970s, did young people know who Norma Talmadge was? She was a big deal in the 1910s and 1920s, a fashion icon and a respected dramatic actress believed to have a massive range. She was one of the top five biggest Hollywood actresses. Then age and the talkies got her. Now, she's just a footnote, either in Buster Keaton biographies (he was her brother-in-law for a while) or general silent film histories consumed by geeks like me. The same has happened with tons of big stars from every era. Really, only a few ever get remembrances from younger generations.

Not saying you're wrong, of course. Just the more I read about the history of film and concepts of stardom, the more you realize it's always extremely fleeting and the audiences get narrower over time.

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

And that includes..Roat. I think one reason that Norman Bates lives on, BTW is that unlike Wait Until Dark, Psycho still gets shown a lot in both high school and college classrooms. It lives on like a Dickens novel "as assigned."
--
True indeed. PSYCHO is the film that launched a thousand dissertations.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

The whole "legacy" thing -- with movie stars -- seems to be disappearing. I know among young people I know, not only do they have no idea who Paul Newman or Steve McQueen(the actor) were...they don't know who Eddie Murphy was. Fame just...disappears..nowadays.
--
I do have to wonder though, how lasting was fame ever? Like in the 1960s and 1970s, did young people know who Norma Talmadge was? She was a big deal in the 1910s and 1920s...... The same has happened with tons of big stars from every era. Really, only a few ever get remembrances from younger generations.

---

I've given this some thought over the years -- based on my own youth with movies, natch -- and I can offer this:

When studios like Warner Brothers allowed their "old movies" to be televised on local channels in the 50s(which I don't remember) and the 60s (which I do remember)...the "cut-off date" for movies being allowed to be shown was: 1949. The studios for awhile didn't want their newer films on TV, they wanted to re-release them to theaters(VHS was way in the future.)

The outcome is that my generation of kids in the 60s had a LOT of movies on TV with the stars of the THIRTIES AND FORTIES. Bogart(uber alles), Cagney, James Stewart, Henry Fonda...stayed in the spotlight for a LONG time -- indeed while Bogart died in 1957 and Cagney retired(the first time) in 1961, Stewart and Fonda kept working all through the sixties on screen and Fonda up into the 80s.

Also in the 50s, 60s, and 70s -- in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York City at least , but also in smaller cities where I visited -- "revival movie houses" specialized in showing the movies of long ago stars. Hastened by his "young" death in 1957 (AT 57), Bogart became a cult figure to college students at revival houses in the SIXTIES. Pauline Kael wrote an essay on this, I think.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

JUMP TO: Today.

When I click on my streaming menu screen, I see a lot of movies -- but most of them are from the last 10 years or so, with the stars of the last 10 years or so (Ryans Reynolds and Gosling, Chris's Pine and Pratt and Evans). A lot of these "movies" are straight to streaming(Netflix movies, the new Road House on Prime.)

Consequently, there isn't much ROOM to celebrate the movie stars of other generations. No revival theaters. Really not even video stores or DVD stores like where Tarantino used to work.

That said, there are pages WITHIN some streaming services -- Max for instance -- where one can scroll down and find "the Dirty Harry collection" or "the Lethal Weapon collection" and yeah, if you really WANT to go down memory land with movie stars, you can. But the younger generations behind me don't seem to want to - and maybe movie stars just don't MATTER to them any more.)

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

Not saying you're wrong, of course.

---

Oh, wrong that movie stars used to have legacies but don't anymore? (What a brain twister.)
Oh, I could certainly be wrong. And keep in mind that I "run in circles" (including here) where people know MORE ABOUT movies and movie stars.

I wouldl like to add that as a kid in the 60's, I didn't WATCH Bogart movies and Cagney movies -- but my parents did and I came to learn the stars with the TV on " in the background."

I could never catch up with the Bogart, Cagney, Tracy movies once I grew up to young adult hood -- so I adopted my OWN new stars and went to their movies at theaters. I recall in the 70s, I chose Redford, Nicholson, and Eastwood as my new favorite stars, for different reasons. I kept Steve McQueen and Paul Newman as "60's holdovers"(though McQueen soon semi-retired, disappeared, and died.) I guess I should note that while McQueen and Newman are dead, Redford, Nicholson and Eastwood are still with us. They lasted as humans, if not stars.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

Just the more I read about the history of film and concepts of stardom, the more you realize it's always extremely fleeting and the audiences get narrower over time.

---

The late screewiter William Goldman, in his great book Adventures in the Screen Trade, opined that movie stars as TOP stars didn't last too long at all. Less than 20 years usually, and noted Goldman "a 20 year career is minimal for a doctor or a lawyer."

To illustrate, Goldman offered "Top Ten Movie Star Lists" ten years apart. And in the 70's, the Top Ten of 1973 dropped all sorts of stars in 10 years(Walter Matthau, George C. Scott, Ryan O'Neal...GONE) while Eastwood and Reynolds hung on (John Wayne, too, but not as long.)

Goldman jumped back to the Top Ten Stars of 1960 -- Liz Taylor, Rock Hudson, Doris Day, Cary Grant, Tony Curtis, Sandra Dee, John Wayne and like by 1970, they were all off the list except Wayne!

So I suppose stardom itself(at top pay) IS fleeting, and legacy has always depended on TV, video/DVD and...long gone revival houses.

About those revival houses. I was a Hitchcock fan from early on, and came the 70's, revival houses would run "Hitchcock weeks" -- with plenty of his films to choose from(even if Rear Window, Vertigo and three more were gone for most of the 70's, locked up legally.)

I recall during one of those "Hitchcock Weeks," a theater showed Psycho every night -- but with a different second feature. You could see Psycho with North by Northwest, or Saboteur, or Torn Curtain, or Frenzy. I chose North by Northwest and got probably my favorite double bill of my life -- seeing as Psycho and North by Northwest are my two favorite movies. Anyway, Hitchcock probably had a Bogart-like following in the 70's, even as he only made two new films in that decade before dying "on schedule" in 1980.

reply

[–] letess (1541) 8 months ago

You’re forgetting William Holden (Sabrina) who was probably the love of her life and she his.

I saw Wait Until Dark a long time ago and was terrified. I loved Roat. A few months ago, I saw it at a theater and I wasn’t as terrified. I started wondering why Lisa, played by Samantha Jones, even gave the doll to Sam. Was she going to sell the heroin herself? Especially with Roat, a true psychopath, watching her at the airport. There was a whole bunch of stuff I started to question. It seems to me if they knew they were looking for a doll and Hepburn was being visited by this kid, that maybe the kid had the doll. There was something with the phone too. So much for watching an old movie. But Arkin was fantastic.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

You’re forgetting William Holden (Sabrina) who was probably the love of her life and she his.

---

This happens in real life with "regular people." And its painful for us, too. But what of movie stars? Holden and Hepburn had some sort of affair(the sexual kind, I'll guess) on Sabrina(filling co-star Humphrey Bogart with envious anger) and then about 10-11 years later, Holden and Hepburn did a misfire of a movie called "Paris When it Sizzles." And it KILLED Holden(almost.) He was an alcoholic and he ended up hospitatlized during production and Tony Curtis came in to play a "quickly written role" to handle the middle part of the movie until Holden could come back.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

I saw Wait Until Dark a long time ago and was terrified.

---

Join the club! Welcome.

---

I loved Roat.

--

Join the club! Who didn't?

---

A few months ago, I saw it at a theater and I wasn’t as terrified.

---

Well, some memories of terror are perhaps best left to memory. But Arkin's performance is still fun to watch and Hepburn's exquisite bravery as a newly-blind woman against the team of thugs against her is..inspiring.

---

I started wondering why Lisa, played by Samantha Jones, even gave the doll to Sam. Was she going to sell the heroin herself? Especially with Roat, a true psychopath, watching her at the airport.

---

Well, Lisa seems to have thought that she could get away with it -- perhaps get to the safe harbor of her partners Crenna and Weston for protection while selling the drugs for everyone's profit. She did NOT count on Roat (or his employers) finding out. (Clearly, the old man at the beginning phoned them when she left.)

She gave the doll to Sam to avoid having to give it to Roat. Didn't matter. He killed her.

--

There was a whole bunch of stuff I started to question.

--

One of the very first reviews written by Roger Ebert for his Chicago paper was for Wait Until Dark. I think he gave it one to no stars. A total pan -- the rather snobbish pan of a young guy trying to show off -- he found much of the film ilogical and difficult to believe. He wasn't alone -- a LOT of critics felt a big problem was that "Hepburn didn't call the police when she could have" but -- didn't Arkin and the boys have control of the phone line? And eventually cut it entirely?"

Anyway, you are not alone in questioning plot holes and plot points but -- in 1968(for a 1967 film) when I saw it in a full house, we sure didn' t notice the plot holes. We were too busy screaming.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

It seems to me if they knew they were looking for a doll and Hepburn was being visited by this kid, that maybe the kid had the doll.

---

Another plot hole I did not consider!

---

There was something with the phone too.

--

"As above."

---

So much for watching an old movie.

--

Yes. Sometimes the past should stay in the past, alas.

--

But Arkin was fantastic.

--

Incredible. He really has fun in that opening act scene with all that funny weird dialogue-- until he suddenly pulls a knife on the two other crooks. Scary.

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

Wait Until Dark is among the likes of a host of other Hitchcockian thrillers (including some made by Hitch himself like Vertigo and Dial M for Murder) where if you analyze the plot too closely, it's incredibly implausible. I say this as someone who calls WUD one of her top 5 favorite movies of all time. In real life, Roat would have just walked in and held the Hendrixes at gunpoint. However, Frederick Knott-- much like Hitchcock in many of his films-- isn't interested in pure plausibility (Hitchcock called audience members who nitpicked about plot holes "the plausibles"). He just likes the mind games between the characters, and the idea that a blind housewife could get one up on criminals too arrogant to see her as anything but a victim or assume they don't have the situation under control. (And for me, their arrogance (and fixation on the safe) makes them not considering the kid plausible. Also, a lot of the people I have watched this film with never consider Gloria having the doll either. I recall being surprised by that on first watch.)

I once listened to a podcast where the commentators were trying to figure out the logisitics behind Roat's community theater charade. One was coming up with all these psychosexual motivations (certainly valid-- Roat sniffs Susy's underclothes during the apartment exposition and his demand that she go into the bedroom is heavily suggestive), while the other basically said, "The plot doesn't matter. It's an excuse to get the criminals in the apartment to terrorize Audrey Hepburn." I'd have to agree.

As for me, the plot is largely a lark, a structure from which we get thrills, entertaining character interactions, and most vitally Susy's excellent arc from insecure victim to active heroine. That it isn't plausible-- well, it matters to me about as much as Vertigo also being bats**t insane when you analyze the murder plot in that, a plot so convoluted it makes Roat's seem minimalist. But to each their own, of course. Everyone has their taste.

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

Hepburn was certainly the love of Holden's life (he said as much in an interview), but I don't think he was for her. When they reunited on the set of PARIS WHEN IT SIZZLES, he was still mad for her and she... was not for him, from reports. She rebuffed his attempts at rekindling a relationship-- I imagine his alcoholism was a big turn off too. From reading about Hepburn over the years, I always felt Hepburn was happiest with her final romantic partner, Robbie Wolders.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11758) 8 months ago

Peppard got the last laugh. He did The A-Team.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

Yes he did.

Peppard was proof positive that once you get properly launched in Hollywood -- once you get a name and a fan following -- you CAN survive.

He was a legit movie star through all of the 60s -- How the West the Won and The Carpetbaggers were big hits and The Blue Max was a prestige road show attraction. As his movies got worse and the 60's ended, he switched to TV (Banacek and some other TV leads and guest appearances.) In the 80's he got fired after playing Blake Carrington in the "Dynasty" pilot -- the role went to John Forsythe instead' a new pilot was shot. BUT...that cleared the way for The A-Team and a hit series and a famous role and new fans and even a catch phrase -- "I love it when a plan comes together."

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

If McQueen hadn’t turned down those films - we wouldn’t have Eastwood as Dirty Harry, Stallone as Rambo, Redford in Sundance and that empire, Hackman as Popeye Doyle.

---

And by turning them down, he gave Eastwood THE role of his career(it lasted longer than The Man With No Name) and gave Gene Hackman a role that won him the Best Actor Oscar and leading man stardom after a career in support.

--

BUT The Sorcerer really might have been something.

--

The original was a "foreign classic" but Friedkin's 1977 remake -- his first movie after The French Connection and The Exorcist -- had all the elements of a great modern "international version." All it was missing was a major American movie star in the lead. It got Roy Scheider(always rather uncomfortable as a lead after Jaws.) McQueen -- and how he looked and how he moved -- would have been something.

As I mentioned earlier, what's odd is all the Steve McQueen movies we LOST in the 70's as he kept turning down parts to stay pretty much retired.

---

In Tiffany’s - the original novella is completely different from the film adaptation. Axelrod’s script changes the character in the book that Peppard played. In the book “Fred” character was gay.

---

Well, there you go. Gender is a complex topic, but I'm not sure how much even the movies can manage a love story between a gay man and a straight woman. Friendship, yes(Julia Roberts gay friend in My Best Friend's Wedding.)

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

I didn’t like Peppard in this. I always thought he was stiff and pompous,

---

We have some Peppard fans here, but I'd say "pompous" is about right about a wrong vibe he cast. (I may be "poisoned" by reports that he was VERY pompous in real life, at least early on as a star.)

--

but I actually don’t think McQueen cast as a “writer” would be that good.

--

No. Not really his "type." Yes, he would eventually play a very rich, very elegant Boston blue blood in "The Thomas Crown Affair" but the story was carefully crafted to make him believeable.

--

He just had so much magnetism and he was irresistible in anything.

---

Yep. It took awhile, but McQueen "found his sweet spot" in The Magnificent Seven and The Great Escape(both John Sturges movies) and then accelerated in a series of 60's hits(The Cincinnati Kid, Nevada Smith, his Oscar-nommed turn in epic The Sand Pebbles) and then, in 1968 his one-two superstar punch: The Thomas Crown Affair followed by Bullitt.

---

Other contenders (for the Peppard role) were Robert Wagner and Jack Lemmon.

---

This would have been Jack Lemmon right after The Apartment(a simlilarly bleak romantic comedy about NYC)...MAYBE he could have made it work with Hepburn. MAYBE he could have played a gigolo but...nah, can't see it.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

Poor Robert Wagner. Though he was pretty and skinny and boyish in the 50's, came the 60's he aged into a more meat-on-the-bones handsome virile MAN. BUT there was something about him that was too light, too pretty -- TV became his home with It Takes a Thief.

Wagner was evidently pals with Paul Newman, who helped secure him roles in the Newman movies "Harper," "Winning" and "The Towering Inferno"(with Steve McQueen.) But Newman alongside Wagner sort of demonstrated what makes a leading man in movies(Newman) versus a leading man in TV(Wagner.) But this: Wagner said that HE was in contention to play with Newman in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," and...well...I believe he was in contention(Newman was his pal) but...unlike "newbie" Robert Redford, Wagner was too much "tried and failed" as a leading man. (Recall that Steve McQueen, Warren Beatty and Marlon Brando were in the mix, along with James Coburn...but once the bigger stars bowed out, the producers made Redford a star instead. And oh -- Newman always wanted to play SUNDANCE, but director George Roy Hill said "no...you're Butch.")

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

McQueen really wanted to go against type and fought for Thomas Crown. Norman Jewison had the screenwriter completely rewrite the script so there were fewer words to say.

---

"Fewer words to say." That was Steve McQueen's movie star motto. Indeed, his Wall Street smart rich guy didn't say much so you could say that "McQueen's macho seeped into the blueblood role." Interesting: the same guy had a hand in McQueen's two 1968 hits "Thomas Crown" and "Bullitt." He wasn't a trained screenwriter. He was a Boston lawyer who so impressed McQueen on Thomas Crown that McQueen put him on
Bullitt. Alan Trustman.

---

In this case, Sean Connery turned down this role and regretted it.

---

Yes I read that EVENTUALLY and I was amused. When I first saw Thomas Crown , I thought "this is a role for Sean Connery." Glad to see I was right.

Bullitt is my favorite movie of 1968(and not just for the car chase, the conflicts with Robert Vaughn were great) but...I never much liked "Thomas Crown" -- other than McQueen's "stunt performance." First, I didn't like the idea of a rich guy putting on a bank robbery "for kicks" in which innocent people were terrorized, beaten and in one case, shot(to wound.) Second, well, its a reminder that SOME 60's movies just weren't all that exciting as "crime films." Its kind of boring, and informed(I suppose) by a European Francois Truffaut-wannabee look.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

Another McQueen anecdote I like (given his "fewer words to say" mantra) was when he had to act opposite the neurotic Method perfectionist and emoter Dustin Hoffman in "Papillon." After cut was called on a scene between McQueen and Hoffman, McQueen evidently snapped at Hoffman: "LESS!" Meaning: less emotion, less talk. Oh, well Hoffman did OK in HIS fashion.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

McQueen died in 1980 at 50 so he didn’t make the 80s.

---

This was a true shock when it happened. After all, he had pretty much been gone from movies in 1975, 1976, 1977(less Enemy of the People), 1978, and 1979. That's a long time. So he comes back with two mediore movies in one year and...dies.

McQueen is a great "what if?" What if he HAD lived on? I expect he would have rescued his career somewhat. The beneficiary of McQueen's death was ...Paul Newman..who suddenly lost his main age competition, got one role intended for McQueen(Fort Apache the Bronx) and then had Oscar-nommed hits in Absence of Malice and The Verdict(I can see McQueen in the former film, but not the latter.)

These macho men stars were all born in 1930: Steve McQueen, Clint Eastwood, Sean Connery, Gene Hackman. Eastwood and Hackman are still alive. Eastwood still works. Connery lived to 90. But McQueen left us at least 30 years too soon.

--- When he was married to Neile McQueen, she chose a lot of his movies. He followed her suggestions for those great earlier movies. Their marriage fell apart when he did The Getaway and met Ali.

---

Yep. Always interesting to me that Ali rather looked like Neile, and that McQueen's final wife after Ali looked like Ali. He definitely had a type. Neile got that kind of "long standing friend" role that first wives get. And she was the mother of McQueen's two children(who were, evidently, another reason he took most of the 70's off, to stay at home and raise those kids -- he'd been parentless growing up.)

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

That entire second marriage is when some of these other movies came up.

---

Never thought of that. A lot of people thought Ali MacGraw couldn't act too good -- but she had three hits in a row -- Goodbye Columbus, the mega-blockbuster Love Story, and The Getaway -- and McQueen sort of took her away from her stardom. HE "retired" and made sure that SHE retired with him to their Malibu home. He shut down a major female star.

I've read of Old Katherine Hepburn coming to their Malibu home to pitch McQueen to act in "The Ultimate Solution of Grace Quigley" with her -- he'd played a hit man blackmailed by Kate into mercy-killing her elderly friends and herself. The movie DID get made -- with Nick Nolte, but its not a major one. Anyway, you've got Ali and Steve VERY nervously hosting Kate Hepburn in their Malibu pad...like a young couple having the Queen visit. ANOTHER 70's movie McQueen didn't make.

---

He didn’t do Dirty Harry because he played a cop in Bullitt.

---

And in San Francisco, yet. I've always loved the contrast between McQueen as Bullitt and Eastwood as Harry. Bullitt was cool, calm, in a steady relationship with a smart beauty(Jaqueline Bisset.)
Eastwood was hot, raging, widowed(car accident killed his wife.) McQueen used his gun once and felt remorse. Eastwood used his(much bigger) gun all the time. Still, two great movies.

The "cop thing" was also why he turned down The French Connection. He almost turned down
Bullitt -- cops had been his enemies as a young juvie. But he came to respect the ones he met with. Took the role. Played up "the rebel" - as with Harry, Bullitt's enemies are as much the politicians and bureaucrats as the killers are.

--

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

Sundance - his never ending rivalry with Newman. Yet, both are in Towering Inferno.

---

They broke over billing. A Newman biography says that Newman was on board first. McQueen agreed to come on board if Newman took second billing. Newman thought about it and told his agent: "No. I was here first!"

I have a theory about why McQueen and Newman did The Towering Inferno together when Butch didn't work out. Its this: whereas in Butch Cassidy, they would have had to be on screen together ALMOST ALL THE TIME(they even ride on one horse together, with Sundance in second position, arms wrapped around Butch's waist) in The Towering Inferno, they only share about three scenes together - and talk to each other by phone the rest of the time. McQueen and Newman are each pretty much starring in different movies in TI, pulling off separate rescues, etc. Billing was solved with McQueen left and lower then Newman on the right.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

I think he chose Enemy of the People to try a classical actor’s work - maybe it was to show Ali, who was educated and privileged,

---

Many folks believe the former, but that's a great new theory about the latter: seeking to impress his educated wife.

---

and McQueen came up from a truly dysfunctional family. He said if he wasn’t in the home for juvenile delinquents which redirected his life that he would be a bum.

---

Yes. McQueen has a few "tempermental actor" stories(who doesn't) but he has very GOOD stories about how he would ride his motorcycle out to that SoCal "home for boys" and hang out with the current boys (playing pool, talking) even though he was a "major movie star."

It may have been too gossipy an attack, but someone wrote that McQueen's doppelganger in Hollywood was...Marilyn Monroe. Both had horrendous, near-orphan childhoods. Both were very sensitive and touchy to work with as stars(but at least McQueen knew his lines.) Maybe. Who knows? A lot of stars had rough childhoods. Michael Caine grew up poor and wrote in his autobio "There were only two ways out of the London ghetto in which I lived. Show business or sports. I wasn't any good at sports."

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

Hitchcock might not have wanted John Gavin for Psycho but I think he tried to get him for Topaz.

---

I'm not sure if Hitchcock actually wanted John Gavin for Topaz, but he got a near-unknown Austrian actor named Frederick Stafford who LOOKED a LOT like John Gavin. It was uncanny. But Stafford was older than Gavin and not really as handsome. Frederick Stafford was sort of "the male Tippi Hedren" in Hitchcock's later years: an unknown molded upon a famous model(Hedren = Grace Kelly; Stafford = Cary Grant.) The copies didn't match the originals.

The Austrian actor Fredrick Stafford was playing a FRENCHMAN and got the accent right. I don't know how he pulled that off. The perfect casting for the role would have been Yves Montand, but he turned it down. Hitchcock even tried to get Connery to play "a Scottish Frenchman." (!) Topaz isn't a great Hitchcock film, but it is interesting given his ties to France in 1968 when it was made. And the supporting players surrounding Stafford were very good.

--

Actually I don’t think he thought much of Gavin or Kim Novak for that matter as far as acting.

---

No, he dissed both of them. Novak, of course, survives today as the star of Vertigo -- and she is very GOOD in it. The late John Gavin got a "second lead role" in Psycho -- and I think he is great in it. Viggo Mortensen in the remake didn't have nearly the power and commitment of Gavin in the role.

I read somewhere that Hitchcock -- like some other "mean" directors -- would pick "one actor per movie" to bully and insult in front of the other players -- to keep everybody in control. Novak and Gavin drew the honors on their movies.

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) 8 months ago

I'm not sure if Hitchcock actually wanted John Gavin for Topaz, but he got a near-unknown Austrian actor named Frederick Stafford who LOOKED a LOT like John Gavin. It was uncanny. But Stafford was older than Gavin and not really as handsome. Frederick Stafford was sort of "the male Tippi Hedren" in Hitchcock's later years: an unknown molded upon a famous model(Hedren = Grace Kelly; Stafford = Cary Grant.) The copies didn't match the originals.
--
Strafford suffers in TOPAZ if only because his character isn't particularly colorful. I expect a bigger star would have "filled in" some of the characterization, perhaps? For me, TOPAZ is flawed but super fascinating in how much it diverges from the usual Hitchcock style. And the supporting characters all certainly eclipse the lead. For me, the most memorable and haunting figure of that film is Karin Dor's Juanita.

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

Strafford suffers in TOPAZ if only because his character isn't particularly colorful.

--

Yes. And he doesn't really get to DO much. Famously, he has to stand across the street literally doing nothing while the much-more-interesting Roscoe Lee Browne walks into lethal danger in Harlem's Hotel Teresa with Castro's minions.

And he escapes death in Cuba only to leave Juanita behind to face it(yeah, she MADE him go but...what kind of hero is this?)

Most of the time, Stafford holds the screen well enough(neutrally) but he is force to emote with his face a couple of times and its either bad acting or a case of consitipation on screen(the script IS kind of soap opera, but Stafford can't sell it --these are scenes about having to lose Juanita as lover, comrade, and alive.)

--

I expect a bigger star would have "filled in" some of the characterization, perhaps?

---

Yep. But Hitchcock was trapped on this one. Only Yves Montand reads as "right and bankable" and he turned it down. Sean Connery would have made no sense at all.(I saw storyboards with Sean Connery's face on the lead at the Hitchcock Exhbit at the Academy in 1999.) I suppose he could have hired an American like -- George Peppard? -- and given him French accent.

---

For me, TOPAZ is flawed but super fascinating in how much it diverges from the usual Hitchcock style.

---

Oh, yes. I have great affection for Topaz. I saw it in a theater on release -- an old palace theater -- with a "Hitchcock gallery" in the lobby and copies of Hitchcock/Truffaut for sale on tables. And whlie it is in no way a fantasy adventure like North by Northwest, it "fits" the Eurofilm template of 1969.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3692) 8 months ago

And the supporting characters all certainly eclipse the lead.

---

Yes. African-American Roscoe Lee Browne is all fun near the beginning. And near the end, Hitchcock enlists two French character men -- Michael Piccoli and Phillipe Noiret --who were well known in international cinema(Piccoli had just been in "Belle de Jour." The Russian defector had worked for Ingmar Bergman. Andre's daughtter had worked for Truffaut.

---

For me, the most memorable and haunting figure of that film is Karin Dor's Juanita.

--

I think you're right. Two years before, Karin Dor had been a "Bond Girl" -- villainess division in "You Only Live Twice" but with red hair and playing to her German nationality. (Pirahanas ate her.)

But here she is looking EVERY INCH the raven-haired Cuban latino.

And she is a tragic figure. Hitchcock was "defying modern left-wing politics" in showing Castro as a villain but Juanita makes the case: her husband (now dead) was a hero of the revolution but she sees the new regime as new tyrants.

reply

[–] CountJohn (602) 8 months ago

Curtis seems totally wrong for this. Could see McQueen doing it but Peppard had the chemistry with Audrey and we don't know if that would have been replicated.

reply